Australia AUSTRALIA - 4YO AUGUST (GUS) Missing from rural family home in Outback, Yunta, South Australia, 27th Sept 2025

[whinewiththegravy]

I am actively wondering why--like several other WSers and in light of the very opaque timeline LE have given in the impeccably transcripted presser--Grandma J is assumed to be the non-parental resident who has "withdrawn" their "cooperation" and whose "timeline" is now questionable.

Firstly, lawyers for both grandmothers have affirmatively pledged their continuing cooperation and have otherwise refused to offer further public comment. Burden of proof is on LE characterizing one grandparent as non-cooperative and making that non-cooperation* or expression of basic rights seem suspect and suggestive of guilt is prejudicial.

Further, I'm surprised authorities in Australia would fudge their timelines in a fashion that obfuscates the probative, substantive relevance of their heretofore untested "AI" imaging. To wit: we're told "only as recently as the 14th and 15th of January when we attended there did we get more information" about possible purported discrepancies in timelines from Gus's mother and both grandparents. But there is no narrative as to how these "discrepancies" were determined and on what grounds, other than that they appeared to occur after investigators were convinced their "AI"-assisted imagery ruled out Gus wandering away and perishing undetected on the property.

If investigators assumed their tech was fool-proof, any testimony by Jess or both grandmothers consistent with their original statements could be viewed as faulty or lies. Pushed to "admit" to erring, any or all of the women could be harried into hedging or altering their testimony to fit this new "AI" data. Thus, discrepancies are born.

It's extremely concerning to me that 14/15 January marks the culmination of the "imaging" and the beginning of the three women either spontaneously revealing "discrepancies" or being interrogated with "findings" that have never been tested in an Australian court but concern a size and kind of geography, a span of time, and a type of vulnerable human that goes missing multiple times per year with no human intervention necessary and whose remains almost invariably remain missing but for sheer luck. Investigators decided the images can't lie, and battered the women until they supposedly diverged or broke down. Why re-interview key witnesses in this order? Why would phone or other vehicle data only come into play after your "AI" imaging creates new opportunities to blindly poke holes into the original reports? Is the law so strict it wouldn't warrant examination of a simple set of alibis before this but simultaneously so lax that novel experiments without guardrails warrant throwing them out?

The lay explanation we were given about the "detection" of different movements per animal, vehicle, human, is all about odds, pixels, and the flagging of a human to validate the results. Will they quantify those odds against the known ones concerning how humans actually going missing? For all the science patter, the real world pattern again goes unsaid.

*per both attorneys, non-cooperation appears to be dsputing an alternative timeline LE have invented and asked bystanders to agree to, or addressing supposed discrepancies they have previously acknowledged/denied

 

[jepop]

If it were to turn out Gus' mama didn't see him that morning, I would completely understand, assuming she didn't want to risk waking him by going into his bedroom, and she knew a relative was home to take care of him when he woke up. Some kids aren't deep enough sleepers to risk waking them by going into the room (at least I can't open and close our bedroom doors 100% silently). IMO.

For sure, although Imo it does need to be said it's just speculation that JL/JM took off at the crack of dawn to commence whatever it was they were doing on the station that day.

I think that for those who tend towards believing the basics represented in the police timeline back then are still considered to be solid by police now ( I lean that way at present), then all we can assume is that SM was alone with the children at the time she told police Gus went missing, and that JM/JL were out on the station.

For all anyone knows, JM could have gone out early and JL joined them after breakfast, or they both may have left after Gus was up. We don't have that level of detail available to us.

But if police are still working off the same time line that Gus disappeared that day ( ie not the day before for eg), then I think they must be quite certain that he was alive and well at the homestead that morning. If so, then Imo this will be because JL saw him before she left (whatever time that may have been,) and Police believe her. Jmo

Bouncing off to speculation as to what timeline police are working from * now*, below is something I picked up from the presser last week ( I made a post a ways back about it).

At about time stamp 32:36 the Supt. is asked:

"Does the time line from when he was last seen still stand?"

He replies "We are still working on that time line, yes".

 

[Dotta]

As I understand it
if Jess is not considered to have anything with the disappearance of Gus
then the timeline she provided to Police is true, no?

And it was the original one.
I mean,
what time she left,
what time she returned,
who she was with,
where,
was she left alone there?
If yes, for how long?
Etc, etc....

Because,
why would she lie?
She had nothing to hide.
No reason.

Otherwise,
she would be suspected of cover up.
And she is not.

JMO

 

[jepop]

Good observations. The only context we can rely on is what SAPOL have stated and that is the SM stayed with the 2 children whilst JM went off with JM to tend to sheep and then they came back. We cannot rely on the timeframe that had been given by SM as the police has questioned it's very nature of fact. Everything else is conjecture.
Is the sheep excursion timeline even made up to the extent that the time period is completely wrong to throw everything out? Is JM protecting SM and for what reasons?
MOO

Not sure I understand what you're saying here about the sheep excursion timeline ,( I don't personally think it's made up, I don't believe JL lied at all), but yeah at this point I'm speculating police can't rely on what SM told them, or IOW inconsistencies may be related to SM statements.

All Jmo.

 

[_sleuthdog_]

I believe the last few posts referencing JL are actually referring to the mother JM, not the father with the initials of JL, if anyone else was momentarily confused

 

[TMich6811]

Gus

 

[kurtneverdied]

I am actively wondering why--like several other WSers and in light of the very opaque timeline LE have given in the impeccably transcripted presser--Grandma J is assumed to be the non-parental resident who has "withdrawn" their "cooperation" and whose "timeline" is now questionable.

Firstly, lawyers for both grandmothers have affirmatively pledged their continuing cooperation and have otherwise refused to offer further public comment. Burden of proof is on LE characterizing one grandparent as non-cooperative and making that non-cooperation* or expression of basic rights seem suspect and suggestive of guilt is prejudicial.

Further, I'm surprised authorities in Australia would fudge their timelines in a fashion that obfuscates the probative, substantive relevance of their heretofore untested "AI" imaging. To wit: we're told "only as recently as the 14th and 15th of January when we attended there did we get more information" about possible purported discrepancies in timelines from Gus's mother and both grandparents. But there is no narrative as to how these "discrepancies" were determined and on what grounds, other than that they appeared to occur after investigators were convinced their "AI"-assisted imagery ruled out Gus wandering away and perishing undetected on the property.

If investigators assumed their tech was fool-proof, any testimony by Jess or both grandmothers consistent with their original statements could be viewed as faulty or lies. Pushed to "admit" to erring, any or all of the women could be harried into hedging or altering their testimony to fit this new "AI" data. Thus, discrepancies are born.

It's extremely concerning to me that 14/15 January marks the culmination of the "imaging" and the beginning of the three women either spontaneously revealing "discrepancies" or being interrogated with "findings" that have never been tested in an Australian court but concern a size and kind of geography, a span of time, and a type of vulnerable human that goes missing multiple times per year with no human intervention necessary and whose remains almost invariably remain missing but for sheer luck. Investigators decided the images can't lie, and battered the women until they supposedly diverged or broke down. Why re-interview key witnesses in this order? Why would phone or other vehicle data only come into play after your "AI" imaging creates new opportunities to blindly poke holes into the original reports? Is the law so strict it wouldn't warrant examination of a simple set of alibis before this but simultaneously so lax that novel experiments without guardrails warrant throwing them out?

The lay explanation we were given about the "detection" of different movements per animal, vehicle, human, is all about odds, pixels, and the flagging of a human to validate the results. Will they quantify those odds against the known ones concerning how humans actually going missing? For all the science patter, the real world pattern again goes unsaid.

*per both attorneys, non-cooperation appears to be dsputing an alternative timeline LE have invented and asked bystanders to agree to, or addressing supposed discrepancies they have previously acknowledged/denied

The AI has nothing to do with evidence. They were just showing the results of the drone data which was done ages ago.
They said they seized vehicles and devices which obviously show definitive proof of a major part of the story not lining up. It is likely very substantial proof because one of the GPs has stopped talking completely and both have lawyers.

 

[kurtneverdied]

As I understand it
if Jess is not considered to have anything with the disappearance of Gus
then the timeline she provided to Police is true, no?

And it was the original one.
I mean,
what time she left,
what time she returned,
who she was with,
where,
was she left alone there?
If yes, for how long?
Etc, etc....

Because,
why would she lie?
She had nothing to hide.
No reason.

Otherwise,
she would be suspected of cover up.
And she is not.

JMO

I personally think the whole family have known the whole time due to a few reasons. None of them felt desperate to release a pic just in case he was abducted. None cooperated with any media, those that have had contact have been aggressive towards them. No statements released. I think police are concentrating more on the ringleader, the one who pulls the strings and orchestrated this cover-up, the other family members are likely coerced into silence and if asked, a story to stick too.

 

[Bigditch]

DBM

 

[JLZ]

If it were to turn out Gus' mama didn't see him that morning, I would completely understand, assuming she didn't want to risk waking him by going into his bedroom, and she knew a relative was home to take care of him when he woke up. Some kids aren't deep enough sleepers to risk waking them by going into the room (at least I can't open and close our bedroom doors 100% silently). IMO.

I don't have kids so perhaps that's why I don't understand. What exactly is the risk of a child waking up in the morning? It's what people are supposed to do.

 

[musicaljoke]

I don't have kids so perhaps that's why I don't understand. What exactly is the risk of a child waking up in the morning? It's what people are supposed to do.

A young child who wakes up an hour or two earlier than their usual time may end up being a needy, grumpy, tired child for the rest of the day. It makes it a difficult day for everyone. A wakened child might cry beyond soothing and cling to your leg as you are trying to head out. The poor little guy would be so upset, heart-broken and mad. I too, would not risk going into my wee kiddie's room in the morning and waking them up.

 

[gerardo20]

A young child who wakes up an hour or two earlier than their usual time may end up being a needy, grumpy, tired child for the rest of the day. It makes it a difficult day for everyone.

Josie must have woken up too early

 

[wallyworld]

https://www.news.com.au/national/south-australia/gary-jubelins-reaction-to-huge-gus-news/news-story/ca8182e16f80da046239009e4bb3d42c?dicbo=v2-dSWI7rH

Speaking to news.com.au, Gary Jubelin, the former lead investigator in the William Tyrell case, said it is “clear” police had moved onto the next phase of the investigation.

“I think it’s best [for the public] not to speculate what’s been done. The police have kept the public informed. They will have a strategy and an investigation plan in place,” he said.

“One thing I learnt through William Tyrrell thing is that speculation and rumours can impact on a lot of people. I don’t think there’s need for this.

“I think we should put our trust in the South Australia Police. They’ve kept the public informed where they need to.

“Now, I think the best thing would be to step back and let police do their job. The investigation would be best served if we (don’t) speculate what happened to Gus and let’s wait and find out at the conclusion of the investigation.”

Excellent post that others need to take on board.
Having read a couple of pages today in this thread, my head was spinning with confusion.... so much speculation based on misinformation from the media.

 

[GlobeFireCandle]

We are all on here because we have curious minds that can’t help but speculate

 

[wallyworld]

However, unfortunately, my trust in the SA police was not helped by the claim that Josie Murray was waving a gun while speaking to the DM reporter because Josie had wanted to shoot a snake on the porch....

How do we know that this is not fact?

 

[Bigditch]

Excellent post that others need to take on board.
Having read a couple of pages today in this thread, my head was spinning with confusion.... so much speculation based on misinformation from the media.

Dbm

 

[gerardo20]

gerardo20 said:
However, unfortunately, my trust in the SA police was not helped by the claim that Josie Murray was waving a gun while speaking to the DM reporter because Josie had wanted to shoot a snake on the porch....

How do we know that this is not fact?

While we don't have evidence of the snake yarn. The phrase "kill a snake" means to urinate in outback Aust. Here's something from the Australian National Dictionary.....

snake yarn a tall story. [From the fact that stories about encounters with snakes characteristically involve exaggeration.]

1885 Maitland Mercury 17 Oct. 3/4 The stove is now in Walgett and may be seen, and although many snake yarns have been told around its cheering blaze few are so true as that of its arrival. 1898 Bulletin (Sydney) 17 Dec. (Red Page), A fairy-tale has become a post-and-rail or ‘snake-yarn’. 1903 Advocate (Burnie) 27 May 2/6, I believe the crop is near 30 tons per acre… This is no ‘snake yarn’. 1908 ‘Fifty-Three Yrs.’ Miner’ So Long 115 They are all facts which have come under my own observation, not merely ‘snake’ yarns! 1947 M. Raymond Smiley gets Gun 26 ‘We ain’t allowed to give anyone a lend of our guns,’ said Mick. ‘That’s a snake yarn!’ ‘It ain’t. My father says a cove’s gotter be responsible to use a gun, and you ain’t responsible.’ 1959 M. Raymond Smiley roams Road 11 If you haven’t told me a snake yarn, then I’m glad. 1968 S. Gore Holy Smoke 50, I see in the paper here .. how a couple of dolphins, down around Woy Woy or some place, swum all the way to shore with a bloke to keep the sharks off him. She seems a bit of a snake yarn to me. 1987 Sydney Morning Herald 8 Oct. 6/1 She dismissed as a ‘snake yarn’ speculation that Sir Joh might take a seat in the Senate after he resigned as Premier. 2006 Townsville Bull. 16 Sept. 86/3 At Christmas time and birthdays, many colourful stories were related over cold drinks which had been bedded down in wash tubs filled with ice. The authenticity of snake yarns were often supported by the presence of a live python coiled on the rafters above.​

2. In the phrase to kill a snake: to leave a group, esp. to go and urinate.

c. 1910 O'Brien & Stephens Material for Dict. Austral. Slang (MS State Lib. N.S.W., MLMSS 4937/28, Item 2) 101 Kill a snake, humorous, akin to the excuse of ’tween acts drinkers going out to see a man. Man with a private bottle of [sic] a picnic adjourning to have a drink, or lovers going off into the bush to spoon, are said to be going to kill a snake. Snakes are pretty numerous in some pic-nicing localities. 1941 S.J. Baker Pop. Dict. Austral. Slang 41 Kill a snake, to, an equivalent of ‘to see a man about a dog’. 1948 R. Raven-Hart Canoe in Aust. 41 He had heard ‘to see a man about a dog’, but preferred the Australian ‘to go and kill a snake’. 1965 J. O'Grady Aussie Eng. 36 A toilet… A place in which .. to ‘kill a snake’.​

 

[Dotta]

Gus's mum flees her hideaway home after cops 'suspect' bombshell

Gus Lamont's devastated mother Jessica Murray has fled her hideaway home in Adelaideafter she moved out of the outback station where her son disappeared.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[wulfmoon]

https://www.news.com.au/national/south-australia/gary-jubelins-reaction-to-huge-gus-news/news-story/ca8182e16f80da046239009e4bb3d42c?dicbo=v2-dSWI7rH

Speaking to news.com.au, Gary Jubelin, the former lead investigator in the William Tyrell case, said it is “clear” police had moved onto the next phase of the investigation.

“I think it’s best [for the public] not to speculate what’s been done. The police have kept the public informed. They will have a strategy and an investigation plan in place,” he said.

“One thing I learnt through William Tyrrell thing is that speculation and rumours can impact on a lot of people. I don’t think there’s need for this.

“I think we should put our trust in the South Australia Police. They’ve kept the public informed where they need to.

“Now, I think the best thing would be to step back and let police do their job. The investigation would be best served if we (don’t) speculate what happened to Gus and let’s wait and find out at the conclusion of the investigation.”

To keep this short as it does not relate to our GL case study, GJ himself went off on a completely different tangent and lost focus on the WT case and wasted valuable time that pushed the suspected main perpetrators out of focus, and yes he was shafted very quickly for those actions.
Drawing a parallel between both cases: we want SAPOL to do their job right and not have to go back to a verandah and comb through the sand pit. But if we may for a moment draw parallels between both cases then let us do so because both cases share similarities.
1. A young boy goes missing without a trace.
2. There are inconsistencies between versions of events especially the timeline and period of time allowing for a cover-up if a cover-up exists??
3. We find out much later that in the former that CA occurred with the other child not knowing if it occurred in the primary but in our present case this has not and I stress has not occurred afawk. However police most wisely used listening devices to detect CA in the WT case and saved a victim. Thank you officiers.
4. Electronic devices are involved.
5. Variations of events and timelines are strongly being questioned and definitely questioned in the WT case.
6. Many parties involved costing an immeasurable amount of time and money and valuable resources that could be used elsewhere and costing that effects every Australian.
7. Members of the family are distanced away from the claimed crime scene.
And the list could go on.
MOOs'

 

[wulfmoon]

How do we know that this is not fact?

You are right wallyworld. I have already questioned this as I suspect that the use of it was questionable. Let's not talk about the DM.
But as I have already stated previously and as an emphatic question: why would you allow a child to play in the sand pit (dirt) when you have snakes outside? Unless you want the child to be bitten by a brownie! (A brown snake)
Nothing quite adds up, does it?